Krauthammer dismisses alternatives to war with Iran

Neither facts nor nonmilitary alternatives deter Charles Krauthammer ("Iranian regime starts to feel the heat," Sunday) from pushing war with Iran. For instance, Krauthammer omits that the United Arab Emirates' ambassador to Washington said other Arab countries have different opinions about an attack on Iran, and that the United States could make more progress with Iran by pushing for an Israel-Palestinian peace treaty.

As for putting "serious pressure" on Iran by limiting gasoline imports, Iran has already reduced its dependency on sanctioned sources (e.g. imports from China and expanding gasoline production). While gasoline restrictions might still hurt Iranians, who does Krauthammer think will run out of gasoline first: poor farmers trying to bring produce to market or members of the Revolutionary Guard?

Krauthammer gloats that the Obama administration is becoming less afraid of attacking Iran if it does not cease uranium enrichment. But what about a worst-case scenario, as we experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many more soldiers must we put in harm's way, and what about another 10-year war with another trillion dollars gone? Why not listen to arms-control experts who say we should allow Iran to enrich uranium in return for greatly enhanced inspections, which would ensure against nuclear weapon development?